On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 5:09 PM Michael Peddemors <mich...@linuxmagic.com> wrote:
> On 18-10-01 04:48 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: > > Mail servers that believe SPF policies and reject messages because of it > > are really kidding themselves. > > > > This could start a whole thread on it's own.. > There have been many. With all respect, if someone advertises an SPF -all we SHOULD be > honouring this.. This was the senders wishes.. > If it's an empty -all, sure, that indicates the domain never sends mail. Otherwise, no. ESPECIALLY if it is from banks etc, a message that didn't come from the > authorized source.. well.. > With all due respect to those senders, that's not the way the world works. People forward mail. This is why DMARC was created, because we know SPF failed as a policy. There was also the various DKIM policy initiatives that also failed. At least DKIM said that a failed DKIM signature should mean nothing, not that it prevents some people from rejecting any message with a broken DKIM signature. Brandon
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
